It is amazing (and slightly creepy) how things that people used to do turn out to have been exceedingly good for them without them knowing it. All those beautiful brass doorknobs and handrails? They were saving people’s lives.

Researchers have discovered that copper and alloys made from the metal, including brass, can prevent antibiotic resistance in bacteria from spreading.

Plastic and stainless steel surfaces, which are now widely used in hospitals and public settings, allow bacteria to survive and spread when people touch them.

Even if the bacteria die, DNA that gives them resistance to antibiotics can survive and be passed on to other bacteria on these surfaces. Copper and brass, however, can kill the bacteria and also destroy this DNA.

Professor Bill Keevil, head of the microbiology group at Southampton University, said using copper on surfaces in public places and on public transport could dramatically cut the threat posed by superbugs.

Professor Keevil said: “There are a lot of bugs on our hands that we are spreading around by touching surfaces. In a public building or mass transport, surfaces cannot be cleaned for long periods of time.

“Until relatively recently brass was a relatively commonly used surface. On stainless steel surfaces these bacteria can survive for weeks, but on copper surfaces they die within minutes.”

With the most recent school shooting in Florida, all the “gun-control” arguments will be rehashed on the news and by celebrities and politicians. Maybe some proposed laws will be put forth. Lots of crocodile-teary-eyed liberals yelling about republicans, especially Trump, and the NRA having “blood on their hands!” Lots of exaggerating about the problem and prevalence of “gun violence” and “school shootings” in our country. (See this article for a debunking of some of the claims: No, there have not been 18 school shootings so far in 2018)

Sigh. Here we go again.

It is a tragedy that kids were killed. What the shooter did was horrible and evil. The grieving families deserve our prayers. But how can anyone be genuinely surprised? Or honestly, even feel much of anything? The constant tragic, compassion-triggering news cycle has had the effect of making me un-shockable and compassion-numb. Before anyone starts wondering if I’m secretly a psychopath, let me assure you that in real life I often truly feel for people I know and care about, even people I don’t know sometimes. Their pain causes me pain. I cry with them and for them. But people I don’t know? Not so much. My ability to feel compassion over distant events and people has been exhausted by mainstream media manipulation and selective reporting and twisting of events to serve their narrative. If you can’t trust the story-teller, you can’t trust the story.

While “gun-control” will be the focus of the day (or week, or month), with well-deserved side-notes about mental illness and psychotropic drugs, and maybe even a mention or two about “problems in our culture,” no one will point out the surest way to stop all school shootings. All sensible and honest people know that even if you made all guns illegal, it wouldn’t prevent crazy and/or evil people from acquiring them and shooting up schools. Murder is already illegal. Schools are already “gun-free zones.” The shooter at the Florida school had already been expelled and banned from campus. Laws don’t discourage or prevent people from committing crimes as much as we wish they did.

President Trump seems to get that and appears to be referencing all those predictable attempts to “fix” the problem with gun laws. From a statement he gave following the Florida Shooting (my emphasis):

Later this month, I will be meeting with the nation’s governors and attorney generals, where making our schools and our children safer will be our top priority. It is not enough to simply take actions that make us feel like we are making a difference. We must actually make that difference.

Since out-lawing guns won’t do it, what is the surest way to stop all school shootings? Abolish schools. It would be more effective than “common-sense gun laws.” That might sound insane to people who think the public school system is necessary and good, but it makes a lot of sense if you understand that the public school system is NOT necessary or good, and is probably impossible to “fix” (just look at the decades of legal attempts and massive amounts of money dumped into the schools with no positive effect). It is ineffective at truly educating students. It is out-dated and doesn’t train them to succeed in the current world or job market. It is often just a tool of indoctrination for the liberal agenda. And it’s a damned dangerous place to send your kids, even if they’re never victims of a school shooting.

As Vox Day so aptly puts it: Homeschool or Die. After quoting a victim’s mother who blames Trump for the shooting, he has this to say:

While one has to make allowances for a distraught mother (assuming she is not a crisis actor, which is far from a certain assumption), the idea that the President of the USA can do anything to prevent people from shooting up schools is absurd. Why not simply have him ban poverty, drugs, and teenage pregnancy while he’s at it? It’s not like there is a law against murder or anything, right?

The truth is that there is only one solution to the problem of school shootings: homeschool.

Although not putting boys on psychotropic medications would probably help.

The way schools handle boys and frequently put them on medications (like Ritalin and an assortment of anti-depressants and anti-pyschotics) has been suggested as a possible factor leading up to school shootings. But schools are bad for all children and cause plenty of problems that are less obvious than the “going off the deep end” school shooter type (which most likely have multiple contributing factors). Unfortunately, so many parents still don’t understand this.

I was recently horrified to witness a conversation between several Christian parents. It went something like this:

Parent 1: Look at this example in the news about a teacher being beaten up by a student. This terrible student behavior, disrespect for adults and lack of Christian morals in schools and in our culture is part of the reason we choose to homeschool our kids.

Parent 2: Oh, that’s just a rare extreme example given to stir things up. Those sorts of things don’t happen here. My kids are in the public school system and have great teachers! They’re doing really well and growing up to be good Christian kids. They have plenty of nice friends. I’m sure they’re not being exposed to anything bad. I’ve never heard anything from the kids about anything bad here [continues defending the public schools for some time & several other parents chime in with similar arguments].

My mental response: Ha! yeah… even if your kids end up with good teachers (and counting on that is like playing russian roulette), you have no idea what the other students are exposing your kids to and the teachers will never know. And your kids might never tell you either. Or they will, but it will be too late.

Just because you think your kids are having a good experience doesn’t mean that school isn’t a physically and morally dangerous place for kids to be. I know a few things about the particular school system in which Parent 2 is placing so much trust. Yes, it’s ok compared to some places and probably not as SJW infested as many, but I personally know several people working in the elementary schools whom I would not trust with my children, people who are gay, gender-confused, leading immoral lives and/or very supportive of these sorts of lifestyles. I do not have children in this school system, and I know these things. Why does no one else notice? Or care?

If the progressive Left can claim one cultural victory that is nearly total, it is their infiltration and conquest of the public education system. Public schools across the Western world—especially Canada, the United States, and Great Britain—now serve as purveyors of post-modern ideology, replete with “social justice” classes and sex education that is designed to mainstream a wide variety of alternative lifestyles. The latest news on this front is out of the UK…

“Announcing an ‘LGBT-inclusive’ update to all of its products, education giant Pearson has launched a guide to pushing ‘social justice’ activism in every part of the school curriculum…

Organised by subject, the guide lists suggestions to ensure LGBT visibility across the curriculum, for example recommending teachers set questions which reference homosexual relationships in maths and science, and introduce terminology specific to the lifestyles of sexual minorities in foreign language lessons. One example given is to begin a question with: ‘Two women would like to have a baby together, and the doctor recommends they use In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF)’ …

In history lessons, pupils should “study the links between different social justice movements”, while art teachers are urged to “explore the way that art has been, and is being, used to effect social and political change, including LGBT equality, race equality and tackling climate change”…

There has been some backlash, of course—not that it will be heeded: UKIP education spokesman David Kurten stated that… “Maths should be about maths, it should not be about sexualizing children,” he told Breitbart London, warning the new textbooks will make it significantly more difficult for parents “to protect their children from the malign influence of left-wing identity politics.”

***

We can all expect the curriculums of public schools to change and evolve as fast as the LGBT Alphabet Soup is—and we can all expect parental protestations to be ignored.

If you don’t want your children to be indoctrinated, take them out of the public school system. It’s the only choice you’ve got.

There are about 2.3 million home-educated students in the United States (as of spring 2016). This is up from one estimate that there were about 2 million children (in grades K to 12) home educated during the spring of 2010 in the United States (Ray, 2011). It appears the homeschool population is continuing to grow (at an estimated 2% to 8% per annum over the past few years).

Homeschooling – that is, parent-led home-based education; home education – is an age-old traditional educational practice that a decade ago appeared to be cutting-edge and “alternative” but is now bordering on “mainstream” in the United States. It may be the fastest-growing form of education in the United States. Home-based education has also been growing around the world in many other nations (e.g., Australia, Canada, France, Hungary, Japan, Kenya, Russia, Mexico, South Korea, Thailand, and the United Kingdom).

There are many things over which the government shouldn’t have so much control or influence. Education is one of them. Choosing to homeschool could mean saving your child’s soul, and possibly life.

Never-Trumpers and Liberal Christians (and even some supposedly Conservative ones) say that Trump isn’t really pro-life because “he’s an immoral jerk!” and “just look at how he treats immigrants!” They are “upset” and “embarrassed” to have him supporting their cause since he’s actually “bad” or that he’s “just faking it to manipulate voters.” (News Flash: he doesn’t have to live up to campaign promises; very few politicians bother.) Despite their pathetic whining and oh-so-convincing reasoning, Trump just might be the best pro-life president we’ve had.

I saw an intelligent comment about the President’s support of the Pro-life movement. The gist of it was this: it doesn’t even matter if it’s just “lip-service,” the fact that the President of the United States is willing to reach out and put even verbal support behind the movement is no small thing, and when/if no president is willing to even pay lip-service to the movement, the moral compass of our country is no longer just severely damaged, but entirely gone.

It shows that there are enough people left in the USA that care, enough pro-lifers to be worth speaking to and for.

Plenty of people in the Pro-life movement are happy to have the President’s support and consider it a lot more than just lip-service. Multiple organizations have lists of Pro-life victories achieved since Trump became president:

There is also widespread recognition that, in addition to the expected resistance and roadblocks created by the Democrats to delivering on pro-life campaign promises, Establishment Republican have been responsible as well. Fr. Hodges, writing for LifeSiteNews, puts it like this:

From the start, it was clear that Trump may have exaggerated his abilities, but he really meant it when he said he was pro-life.

In fact, as so many other true conservatives have pointed out, the main obstructionists to an all-out pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-family agenda sweeping the nation have been establishment Republicans already in position before the Trump juggernaut.

During his presidential campaign Trump promised to defend the innocent pre-born and his administration has followed through with many actions so far. He recently gave a speech for the March for Life. Following in the the footsteps of previous Republican (but not Democratic) presidents, he made a Proclamation of January 22, 2018, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day.

As one supporter put it, “Taken together, these statements and follow-up actions have defined him as the one of the strongest pro-life allies ever to occupy the White House.”

The Presidential Proclamation:

“Today, we focus our attention on the love and protection each person, born and unborn, deserves regardless of disability, gender, appearance, or ethnicity. Much of the greatest suffering in our Nation’s history — and, indeed, our planet’s history — has been the result of disgracefully misguided attempts to dehumanize whole classes of people based on these immutable characteristics. We cannot let this shameful history repeat itself in new forms, and we must be particularly vigilant to safeguard the most vulnerable lives among us.

“This is why we observe National Sanctity of Human Life Day: to affirm the truth that all life is sacred, that every person has inherent dignity and worth, and that no class of people should ever be discarded as “non-human.”

“Reverence for every human life, one of the values for which our Founding Fathers fought, defines the character of our Nation. Today, it moves us to promote the health of pregnant mothers and their unborn children. It animates our concern for single moms; the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled; and orphan and foster children. It compels us to address the opioid epidemic and to bring aid to those who struggle with mental illness. It gives us the courage to stand up for the weak and the powerless. And it dispels the notion that our worth depends on the extent to which we are planned for or wanted.

“Science continues to support and build the case for life. Medical technologies allow us to see images of the unborn children moving their newly formed fingers and toes, yawning, and even smiling. Those images present us with irrefutable evidence that babies are growing within their mothers’ wombs — precious, unique lives, each deserving a future filled with promise and hope. We can also now operate on babies in utero to stave off life-threatening diseases. These important medical advances give us an even greater appreciation for the humanity of the unborn.

“Today, citizens throughout our great country are working for the cause of life and fighting for the unborn, driven by love and supported by both science and philosophy. These compassionate Americans are volunteers who assist women through difficult pregnancies, facilitate adoptions, and offer hope to those considering or recovering from abortions. They are medical providers who, often at the risk of their livelihood, conscientiously refuse to participate in abortions. And they are legislators who support health and safety standards, informed consent, parental notification, and bans on late-term abortions, when babies can feel pain.

“These undeterred warriors, many of whom travel to Washington, D.C., every year for the March for Life, are changing hearts and saving lives through their passionate defense of and loving care for all human lives. Thankfully, the number of abortions, which has been in steady decline since 1980, is now at a historic low. Though the fight to protect life is not yet over, we commit to advocating each day for all who cannot speak for themselves.

“NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 22, 2018, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call on all Americans to reflect on the value of our lives; to respond to others in keeping with their inherent dignity; to act compassionately to those with disabilities, infirmities, or frailties; to look beyond external factors that might separate us; and to embrace the common humanity that unites us.

“IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this nineteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand eighteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-second.”

Little Charlie Gard passed away last week. He died in the hospital because his parents were not permitted to take him home to die in the peace of home.

What kind of evil is it that claims to be magnanimously keeping an individual’s best interests at the heart of its decisions, but won’t let that person be cared for by the people who love him most in all the world — his parents? Won’t let that person seek alternative care elsewhere, even when it has been offered by more than one hospital and doctor, and generous strangers have donated over million dollars for his care? Won’t let that child and his parents have the comfort of having clergy visit and pray with them? Won’t let him, in the end, die at home? All this in the name of doing what is good and right for that person. We know best… your wishes, your family’s wishes, are irrelevant… we are the ones with power… you will submit…

Jenny Uebbing had this to say about Charlie and what happened to him and his family (a good summary of which can be found here):

True. All true. And yet, his parents wanted to pursue further treatment.His mother and his father, the two human beings who, entrusted by the God with whom they co-created an immortal soul, were tasked with the immense, universe-altering task of making decisions on his behalf.

It’s called parenting.

And when the state steps over the bounds of parental interests – nay, tramples upon them – insisting that government knows best what is best for it’s citizens, (particularly when government is footing the medical bills as is the case with the socialized NHS) then we should all of us, no matter our religions or our socioeconomic statuses or our nationalities, be alarmed.

Charlie Gard was a victim of the the most heinous sort of public power struggle: a child whose humanity was reduced to a legal case and an avalanche of global publicity. And no man, not the President of the United States or the Pope himself, could do a thing to turn the tide in little Charlie’s favor once the momentum was surging against him.

The British courts and the Great Ormond Street Hospital, convinced of their own magnanimity and virtue, ruled again and again against the wishes of Charlie’s parents, frustrating at every turn their attempts to seek a second option, to try experimental treatments, to spend privately-raised funds to secure care for their child not available in their home country.

To no avail.

Charlie Gard, baptized earlier this week into the Catholic Church, went home to be with Jesus today. His innocent soul in a state of grace, we can be confident of his intimate proximity now to the sacred heart of Jesus and to the sorrowful heart of Mary. May his parents feel the comfort of knowing that they fought the good fight, and that they brought their child to the font of eternal life by baptizing him into Christ’s Church and surrendering him into heaven’s embrace as he passed from this life.

And may they find, through the powerful intercession of their little son, now whole and free from suffering, the grace to forgive his tormentors and executioners here on earth.

Republican Senators John McCain, Shelley Moore Capito, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Rob Portman, Lamar Alexander, and Dean Heller all voted “no” on the straight repeal of Obamacare and defund of Planned Parenthood. The failed amendment also included a ban of federal funding of abortion.

All of those senators except for Collins voted “yes” on this bill back in 2015, when it was obvious President Obama would veto it.

Today’s vote doesn’t mean that the Senate still won’t end up repealing (and possibly replacing) Obamacare and defunding Planned Parenthood. The process of Senate debate over the AHCA – and introductions of various amendments to it – will carry on throughout the week.

However, today’s vote showed which Republicans flip-flopped on their opposition to Obamacare.

Wesley J. Smith writes about the difficult and heart-breaking Charlie Gard case and the potential ramifications of the UK court’s decisions. The precedent being set in this case (and similar cases discussed by Smith, including ones in the USA) is chilling regardless of whether you think you’d make the same decisions as Charlie Gard’s parents. Read the entire article at First Things.

… the parents of “Baby Terry”—also born after twenty-three weeks gestation—faced a similar ordeal. The ethics committee at the Hurley Medical Center in Flint, Michigan weighed in on August 9, 1993, opining that to honor the parents’ desire to continue Baby Terry’s treatment “would be contrary to medical judgment and to moral and ethical beliefs of physicians caring for the patient” (my emphasis). In other words, when it came to choosing between the values of the parents—based in large part on their religious faith—and the values of doctors and hospital bioethicists, the state argued that only the latter matters.

On that basis alone, a judge found Terry’s parents unfit to make health-care decisions for Terry and stripped them of their parental rights. He awarded temporary custody to the maternal great-aunt, who had previously stated her willingness to obey the doctors. Before that could happen, the infant died in his mother’s arms, aged two-and-a-half months…

… Charlie’s, and many other similar cases I could recite, involving profoundly ill people of all ages, are examples of what is known in the bioethics trade as “futile care” or “medical futility”—or, as I call it, futile-care theory. FCT authorizes doctors to refuse or withdraw wanted life-sustaining medical treatment over the objections of family and patients when the doctors and/or a bioethics committee believe that the patient’s quality of life makes that life not worth living—or, lurking in the subtext, not worth the resources required to sustain it.

A couple of important points need to be made: We are not talking about an intervention without a potential physiological benefit to the patient—a medical determination. Rather, FCT constitutes a value judgment. As bioethicist Dr. Stuart Youngner once put it, “futility determinations will inevitably involve value judgments about: 1) whether low probability chances are worth taking; and 2) whether certain lives are of a quality worth living.”

Worse, FCT empowers strangers to make medicine’s most important and intimate health-care decisions. Deciding whether to accept or reject life-sustaining care is one of the most difficult medical choices. Under FCT, a patient’s decision—whether it be the desire of an infant patient’s guardians or written in an adult patient’s advance directive—matters less than institutional and professional opinions.

Given all that, Charlie Gard’s heartbreaking situation is not surprising. However, until Charlie’s case, the patient or family has always had the option of finding alternative care. The hospital refusing Ryan’s dialysis did not seek to prevent his transfer. Neither did the hospital in the Baby Joseph controversy.

This is where Charlie Gard’s case is breaking new and even more authoritarian ground. Not only are doctors and judges forcing Charlie off life-support; they are also declaring that their ethics rule over Charlie’s life, even if the parents—Chris and Connie Gard—find alternative care. As far as I know, this is unprecedented in futile-care controversies.

Chris and Connie have raised more than $1 million through crowdfunding to pay for Charlie to be flown to the United States for an experimental treatment that has shown some potential in other mitochondrial conditions. If that course proves impossible, they just want to take their baby home so he can die there instead of in a pediatric ICU. But the hospital administration refuses to permit Charlie to be discharged! And the courts have agreed, based on a determination of what doctors and lawyers believe to be Charlie’s “best interests.”

The only silver lining in this tragedy is that a very sick baby’s life still has the power to move hearts. Not only have Chris and Connie received tremendous popular support internationally, but they are also being backed by two of the most visible leaders in the world: Pope Francis and Donald Trump.

The refusal to allow Charlie’s parents to remove their baby boy from the hospital is an act of bioethical aggression that will extend futile-care controversies, creating a duty to die at the time and place of doctors’ choosing. And that raises a crucial liberty question: Whose baby is Charlie Gard? His parents’? Or are sick babies—and others facing futile-care impositions—ultimately owned by the hospital and the state?

The UK medical center fought in court to disallow the parents to take Charlie elsewhere for care when at one point he was offered care in the USA, and Congress offered them citizenship to do so, AND they raised $1.5 million for his care. The UK medical establishment and courts wouldn’t even let the parents take Charlie home to die in the peace of his home if death were going to be the only option allowed to him. In these difficult cases, it can be very hard to know what is the right thing to do. BUT having the medical center and court overrule the family’s (or individual’s) choices and force someone to die? And die in the hospital too? It is sickening. And terrifying.